38 replies to this topic

[Uncle Harley]

abolt243, on 24 January 2012 - 09:44 PM, said:

Uncle Harley, on 24 January 2012 - 09:42 PM, said:

How do the differences in these two laws affect me for the purposes of the Unlawful Use of
Weapons law?
It is recommended that persons transport their firearms only unloaded and in a case in order to be fully
compliant with all statutes. A firearm transported in a container other than a case while engaged in activities
covered by the Wildlife Code could subject an individual to a charge of Class B Misdemeanor under the Wildlife
Code but would not be considered Unlawful Use of Weapons if the container were a "firearm carrying box,
shipping box, or other container" as provided in the Criminal Code.

source: www.isp.state.il.us/docs/ptfire.pdf

Notice the reference to two different "codes". Oh, and according to Diggens, a console is a 'case' as provided in the Criminal Code.

was this directed at me? ( if so see my post just previous to this one.) ir are you just re-enforcing what I stated?

[Tvandermyde]

uncle i would agree with you, and if a DNR cop tried to write me for it, i would tell him we are going to have a realllly big arguement in Court.

[abolt243]

Uncle Harley, on 24 January 2012 - 10:14 PM, said:

abolt243, on 24 January 2012 - 09:44 PM, said:

Uncle Harley, on 24 January 2012 - 09:42 PM, said:

How do the differences in these two laws affect me for the purposes of the Unlawful Use of
Weapons law?
It is recommended that persons transport their firearms only unloaded and in a case in order to be fully
compliant with all statutes. A firearm transported in a container other than a case while engaged in activities
covered by the Wildlife Code could subject an individual to a charge of Class B Misdemeanor under the Wildlife
Code but would not be considered Unlawful Use of Weapons if the container were a "firearm carrying box,
shipping box, or other container" as provided in the Criminal Code.

source: www.isp.state.il.us/docs/ptfire.pdf

Notice the reference to two different "codes". Oh, and according to Diggens, a console is a 'case' as provided in the Criminal Code.

was this directed at me? ( if so see my post just previous to this one.) ir are you just re-enforcing what I stated?

Just a comment, not directed at anyone in particular.  I know that you and I agree on this, this was reinforcement of your post.

[Uncle Harley]

Todd- Thank you

Abolt- Thank you as well.

[es503IL]

NakPPI, on 23 January 2012 - 05:18 PM, said:

1/19/2012
Judge granted motions to clarify and motion to cite supplemental authority.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

Just out of curiousity, wheres that information coming from? The last thing that I saw posted on the docket was from 01Dec2011.

[NakPPI]

This information is posted on Pacer as a text order on 1/19/12. I'm not sure what else to say?

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

[mauserme]

es503IL, on 25 January 2012 - 12:24 PM, said:

NakPPI, on 23 January 2012 - 05:18 PM, said:

1/19/2012
Judge granted motions to clarify and motion to cite supplemental authority.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

Just out of curiousity, wheres that information coming from? The last thing that I saw posted on the docket was from 01Dec2011.

You can register for a PACER account here.  It doesn't cost anything if you limit your usage.

[es503IL]

Huh, I would have figured that if anything happened with the case (procedural or otherwise), it would be posted to the docket. Thanks.

[XJCraver]

Thank you, Todd and AB, for the clarifications.  I still see it as a gray area of the law, that could very well be exploited, but will concede the argument for now.  Thanks again.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk